Medrano, et al v. Stewart, et al

Filing 180

It is Ordered that no later than twenty (20) days after the filing date of this Order, Petitioner shall show cause in writing why the stay of his sentencing claims should not be lifted, the claims dismissed as moot, and judgment entered. It is furt her Ordered that any motion for issuance of a certificate of appealability shall be filed no later than twenty (20) days after the filing date of this Order (see attached PDF for more information). Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 10/11/2012. (MFR)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Angel Mayora Medrano,
Petitioner,

10
11

vs.

12

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13
14
15
16

Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-99-00603-TUC-CKJ

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

For the reasons that follow, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause why the stay of
his sentencing claims should not be lifted, the claims dismissed, and judgment entered.

17

In 1999, Petitioner initiated this habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The next

18

year he filed an amended habeas petition raising numerous claims for relief from his state

19

court conviction and capital sentence. (Doc. 30.) Following the Supreme Court’s decisions

20

in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), this

21

Court stayed Petitioner’s sentencing-related claims pending successive state post-conviction

22

proceedings based on Ring and Petitioner’s alleged mental retardation. (Docs. 67, 80.)

23

While state proceedings were ongoing, the Court ruled on Petitioner’s conviction-related

24

claims, concluding that he was not entitled to habeas relief. (Docs. 119, 176.)

25

Subsequently, the state court determined that Petitioner was mentally retarded, vacated

26

his death sentence, and resentenced him to life imprisonment, rendering moot Petitioner’s

27

pending sentencing-related habeas claims. Because it appears that state court proceedings

28

are concluded, the Court can discern no basis for maintaining the stay in this case or further

1

postponing issuance of judgment. As already noted, the Court has ruled on all of Petitioner’s

2

conviction-related claims and his sentencing claims became moot when the state court

3

vacated his capital sentence.

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS ORDERED that no later than twenty (20) days after the filing date of this Order,

6

Petitioner shall show cause in writing why the stay of his sentencing claims should not be

7

lifted, the claims dismissed as moot, and judgment entered. Unless otherwise directed by the

8

Court, Respondents shall not file a response.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any motion for issuance of a certificate of

10

appealability shall be filed no later than twenty (20) days after the filing date of this Order.

11

Unless otherwise directed by the Court, Respondents shall not file a response.

12

DATED this 11th day of October, 2012.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-